Skip to main content

About your Search

WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
have a $16 trillion deficit right now. we have the deficit because of social security, medicaid, medicare, welfare, food stamps -- all policies put into effect by the democratic party. everything is socialism. thomas jefferson said it best -- the republic is doomed. people sacrifice -- i'm a libertarian. i am more objective. i'm not a republican or democrats. i have to wonder if i want to live in this country. 29% of americans got some kind of assistance when ronald reagan was president. i have to consider and i'm considering moving to a tropical island and watching america go down the drain. we need to abolish social security, medicare, and medicaid. host: i will stop you there. we appreciate your thoughts. joseph says -- will go back to stay but by the president on the passing of norman schwarzkopf. host: "his legacy will e ndure." back to your calls. caller: good morning. god bless us. [indiscernible] where is the love? .e're at a church when the president and everybody was running. the church was all over the program. we're in the church. do you know what happened? when we f
the wealthiest americans, to deal with some of the deficit. your sense of whether president obama and your fellow democrats in the senate and house will stay the course on this or will eventually compromise in a way that many progressives would regret? >> first of all, we have a divided government. president obama's election said one message, the election of republican house of representatives since another. the actually, working at odds here. you have republicans who will not raise taxes for anyone making more than $250,000 a year, and looking at entitlement cuts. yet democrats that say you have any taxes for those who make under $250,000 and no cuts to the low-you had democrats as a you have no taxes for those -- no tax cuts for those making under $250,000. we're going the wrong direction. why have we been talking about stimulating the economy through jobs? we seem to accept a certain amount of unemployment as being necessary for the proper functioning of the economy, so that for corporations and will keep wages low. that is baloney. we are creating our own economic vice that is entrapping tens
the deficit so social security cuts remain on the table but in the mean time, the president proposed his own plan b, to extend the bush tax cuts on income under $250,000. >> once this legislation is agreed to, i expect democrats and republicans to get back to washington and have it pass both chambers and i will sign the legislation into law before january 1st of next year. it's that simple. >> well, i was surprised by the events this week in terms of the boehner total disaster. i just -- i didn't really get the whole plan from the beginning and i don't understand why you have people vote for a tax increase that mappings to break the pledge that they've all signed but it has no chance of becoming law and clearly, his caucus didn't understand it either. dillon what did you think? >> two things. first and foremost, i think boehner was trying to get action in washington, which we haven't seen and people have been very critical of this move. i thought it was a fairly shrewd political move in that if they were able to actually get the package passed -- >> right. >> it would have put the ball back
of these politicians, mayors, governors should take a half cut pay to pay down the deficit. host: we are going to move on to darwin on the line for independents. caller: it is like the pentelikon, back in 1968 i was even fighting with the pentagon over budgets. you always had to have everything kept the same. nobody was going to change anything because next year there were going to pop everything by 10%. they told you got to worry because you would get 10% more. that goes all the way back to 1968. they just keep dwelling on one thing over and over again. i would like to know from the boston globe or the herald is asking for pictures of -- host: let's move on to del on the line for democrats. caller: this is an outrage that they cannot tax the wealthy by an additional 4%. this is the lowest tax rates that have ever paid in the united states. considering that their incomes are vast compared to what they used to be many years ago when they paid a much higher rate, they are wealthy and they do not want to pay. 4% does not amount to enough to affect the deficit. maybe we ought to consider 15% or something
-defense cuts, and you have this huge amount of revenue, deficit reduction, it is hard to see what demands the republicans think will be easier to make, the new year. guest: you have also seen all the polls that show that the president's popular the is close to an all-time high, and the polls show definitively that the republicans will be blinged if we go over the cliff and taxes go up. that was before the debacle of this past week. it has been a bad week for conservatives. it sounds to me like they're continuing to be a little delusional. host: when you make a public threat, you better be able to back up -- guest: washington wizards might have had a worse week. from a political standpoint, this was a monumental embarrassment for the speaker. host: i want to make sure i get the title of this correct. "the guide to the federal budget." how big is the federal budget? how much do take in? , to do spend? how much is $16 trillion? >> total payroll spending will be about $3.80 trillion. revenues will be about $2.80 trillion. we have a deficit of about $1 trillion. that is for fiscal 2013. that a
taxation by using a flat tax. that way you can calculate the amount of taxes we need for the deficit over 10 years. another point is to control the spending on entitlements by not giving millionaires social security benefits, thereby satisfying president obama's approach. instead of doing it through taxation, he can do it through the entitlements. guest: those are both ideas that have been raised, especially the social security and medicare benefits for the wealthy and potentially might not need them to live off of. one tricky part of that is wealthier americans have been paying these taxes for decades into social security and medicare if and a lot of folks have a problem with the idea of taking away their benefits they have paid for if just because they happen to be more well off. and issued the first caller raised and something to watch is this could really sort of set the tone for the president's second term. if this thing gets ugly and stays ugly, it's probably going to stay that way at least another year or two, and the next thing you know, he's a lame duck president. if we cut a dea
, and that lays the groundwork then for additional deficit reduction and economic growth steps that we can take in the new year. >> joining us now from capitol hill. south dakota republican senator john thune, a member of the budget committee. so, senator, what do you make of the president's plan? >> i'm just glad the president is engaged. you can't do big things in washington, d.c. without presidential leadership. that's what we haven't had. the fact that he is now owe table. better late than never i would argue. at least he is at the table presenting something that wl give us a chance hopefully to get some bipartisan support in the senate and perhaps get something to the house that will avert what everybody agrees is a major economic disaster. but we're still waiting for the details and obviously there is a long ways to go and this is a very -- there is going to be a tough needle to thread in order to get this done. >> see, i don't understand why the democrats think that this is an economic disaster going off the cliff since really it's just a democratic agenda. cuts to defense and higher tax
serious about cutting the defsht and deficit? >> this is, look, this is the greatest irony of this entire discussion. and it is getting lost too much i think in the sometimes in the weeds of the back and forth negotiations. remember, the reason that we're doing this is because this grew out of the 2010 elections and debates over raising debt ceiling that following summer, 2011. the entire purpose was to reduce the size and scope of government in a way responsible to the voters of that midterm election. instead what we're almost certain to see is an expansion of government in the name of reintroducing it. we're likely to see much bigger government long term. we're not likely to deal with entitlement reforms as we need to do. as you suggest the president is pushing some short-term spending increases often in washington turn into long-term spending increases. gregg: but, steve, bill kristol, conservative, you know what, time to throw in the towel. you do not want to get blamed for raising taxes on 98% of americans. >> right. gregg: right? >> look, bill kristol is my boss and editor at "the w
program run a billion deficit in 2012 . as the program brought in over 725 billion in cash and spent more than it earned it is costing 773 billion. >> julia: and you are surprised. benefits reached over 8 million and 820,000 in increase in november . so something shady is going on here. >> you used the word shady . i think that is a pretty good word to use. definition of who is disabled is expanded over the yearrs and recently, as you have a massive rise in unemployment and work force clinking and clearly some people are taking the disability option as opposed to staying in the work force. you can call it shady or financially unfortunate but it is happening. we never had as many people on disability ever before. >> clayton: republicans have a look at entitlement programs and we are trying to reign in the excessive spending. >> there are no serious cuts from president obama. there is serious effort at reforming. medicare and medicare. a lot of people don't say social security is enment. it is an insurance program. but it is enormous amount of money flowing out than in and it is getting wor
, because when g.o.p. is in the white house, deficits don't matter. can you tell us a little bit about the philosophies of the two candidates? well now, the president and the ex-candidate. will the situation be that much different if there was a different man in the white house? guest: well, look, it's an interesting question. it is certainly true that tax policy was one of the key sort of issues in the last election. and actually, the debate that we're having if it sounds familiar, it's because we've had it several times before. it was really a similar debate to what we had in 2008. we had the same debate in 2010. we had a similar debate in 2011 when we were dealing with the debt ceiling issue the first time around. and we dealt it with it in the last election. and the differences have always been that president obama has maintained that tax cuts should be allowed to expire for people making more than $250,000. mitt romney called for extending all the tax cuts fully. and making other changes to the tax code. but, you know, i mean, he wouldn't be in office right now anyway. so i think
has to be matched with real action, spending cuts and other ways to reduce the deficit, that is exactly the fight we are fashion. he doesn't want to have that. republicans are dying to get into that. >> reporter: do you think the president for political reasons wants to go over the cliff? barrasso said so. look, there are a bunch of others who think so. >> there are certainly some on the left who also, just like conservatives, there are some on the left that do. i don't think the president does. part of the reason, just like i don't believe john boehner actually does the house speaker. there is this group in the middle, first of all they are not sure where the political blame would lie. it could end up on them and they want want to have that happen. second of all these are deal mayors. they came to washington to get deals done. and they see the result, the goal as a deal to get past this rather than looking at the numbers. the folks on each side eve are looking at the numbers and they say the deficit would be in better shape and the economy in the long run is in better
family would pay 2,000 to $4,000 more in taxes next year. but, if you're a deficit hawk, you might be happy with this news. the congressional budget office estimates that with all of these new tax revenues, plus those mandatory spending cuts kicking in january 1st, that would all cut the deficit in half next year to about $600 billion. kelly? kelly: we would go through this for about half a year. then there's a talk among some people, that we would actually rebound at the end of six months or so. but that is a lot of pain to go through. is there any idea of what could happen to the economy or stock market as a result of congressional inactivity? >> well, yeah. the cb. off and many private economists say that the $600 billion in fiscal tighting, as you say would push the economy into recession next year and send the unemmoment rate to back above 9%. a survey of investment managers found 60% of the them see a drop in the dow industrials of 10% or more if the cliff is not avoided. kelly? kelly: boy, that is very ominous. peter, thank you. hopefully something can be done. peter barnes.
intermediate deficit problem and implementation of the cost saving measures strengthened over time in the aca will deal with their long-term health care problem. so we are not that far away and we have other tremendous strengths in our country that would allow us to make the kind of investment to transform the economy, to do with the reality of stagnant wages and a sense of diminished opportunities. we have strengths. we can do it. we need the public to rain and behavior that's destructive and we need political leaders to act forcefully. given enough to bipartisan commissions and searched enough for bipartisan consensus. for sensible hard all politics along these lines. >> norm, i particularly cutie take the money question. a couple political had a great shared that showed that party polarization in congress was directly correlated with increasing concentrations of wealth from increasing equality went together artisan polarization. and the money question you can handle so many different ways. i'm really concerned about it posed citizens united system with a federal election commission that's
support it and its effort as everybody knows on the deficit reduction. i'm not sure that anybody really listened, at least they put in the effort. that's apolitical, by the way. so in addition, connie noted it was no surprise to her at the time that based on senator simpson's record in the senate and his bipartisanship work, that he would be chasing to be a cochair of the commission. lastly, i just want to say as we understand, mr. hardy had full access to senator simpson's records, diaries, finance, full access. i will say the senator did mention he's been married 57 years, so anybody that gives full access after 57 years, i think that's pretty impressive. but connie just really wanted to welcome everybody and say we are thrilled to be sponsoring this. [applause] >> nowcome i had the pleasure of introducing what i call the bravest man in the world, dawn hardy, author of the book. i don't you could possibly put all this in one book and decide what to leave in and what to take out at a 70s had senator simpson on msnbc cometh and then ann fox, you change the conversation about politics, c
news is i don't think it many will have meaningful deficit reduction. i think this is just going to keep dragging on and on. >> in your book, you advocate for raising the capital gains tax, which could make wall street owe a lot more money than it does now. >> yes. right. >> that's discussed as part of a fiscal cliff deal, but many believe that will end up hurting the economy, giving a disincentive to invest money? was that just focused on the real wealthy? >> i hear that argument a lot. number one is, i'm really tired of our tax policy decisions. you know, everything, being made by what the market's going to do in the next quarter. this is about aberration of the tax code and grossly unfair. say they raise top tax rate to 39.6% for those making more than $500,000. that means a lot of small businesses will are paying that nearly 40% marginal tax rate where you have billionaire private equity funds paying 15, 20, even 24, depending where they put it. it's not an issue of penalizing investment income. it's an issue of penalizing labor, and those who make their income through wages.
, realistically can there be a grandiose bill that will attempt to solve our spending, deficit problem, with the overall framework? or talking about a band-aid? >> personally, i don't think we'll get the big plan in the next six days. it would be great if we could. >> the whole enchilada. but at least if we can get an appetizer -- no, seriously. if we can get assurance that realistic work is being done to provide tax relief, regulatory relief. the two big laws passed previously in 2010. affordable care act, well intentioned, very costly and those are posing problems too. >> earlier this week, we spoke with grover norquist. you signed the pledge not to sign taxes. >> i did. >> he supported speaker boehner's plan "b" and said it wouldn't violate his pledge. here's what he told us earlier this week. listen. >> i think in fact, plan "b" is a good step to protecting tax cuts for everybody. >> if you look at current law, current law says as we all know, part of the fiscal cliff '01, '03 tax relief measures will expire on january 1st. at this point, everybody's taxes go up. we all know that.
are tough questions to answer. my priority is always education and our long term problems. i'm not a deficit hawk. people on both sides do bothwell. i don't understand the fuss about raising the age qualification for social security are medicare. and plead with the caps -- simply lift the caps. franklin roosevelt to not want to be called a socialist. if we just lived in those caps, we would delay -- i can remember the exact numbers. for several decades, anyway. i think that would be less painful than raising the qualified age. medicare is the toughest because of health care costs have been skyrocketing. our country's health care cost is rising faster than any other industrial nation. we don't have much coronation. obamacare had to be cobbled together to appease everybody. we have it and we should be focusing on ways to make our health care more efficient and i think we will. these are all tough problems but they need to be handled. being president is like playing three-dimensional chess. maybe four dimensions. caller: thank you, c-span. is the last year, didn't the president give over $1 tri
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)